Graeme Pollock vs Barry Richards

[Coronis]

I was having a look at Barry's record in English FC cricket (and am aware of the stories of disinterest which he showed in contests he felt weren't testing him, but anyway...), and I was really surprised at how poor his conversion rate was.

Richards played in England most seasons from 1965 to 1978 - during that period he passed 50 in 133 FC innings, but converted only 40 of them into tons.

He had four seasons in particular where his conversion (or lack thereof) was extraordinary for a player of his class - across the 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1975 English FC seasons, Richards passed 50 on 73 occasions and went on to three figures in just 13 of them.

One could argue its not a quality one wants to have in a player.

At least wait til after your ton to throw it away. Like Hobbs.

 

[sayon basak]

I was having a look at Barry's record in English FC cricket (and am aware of the stories of disinterest which he showed in contests he felt weren't testing him, but anyway...), and I was really surprised at how poor his conversion rate was.

Richards played in England most seasons from 1965 to 1978 - during that period he passed 50 in 133 FC innings, but converted only 40 of them into tons.

He had four seasons in particular where his conversion (or lack thereof) was extraordinary for a player of his class - across the 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1975 English FC seasons, Richards passed 50 on 73 occasions and went on to three figures in just 13 of them.

Them being 3 day matches probably required him to score much faster, thus a low conversion rate would be expected.

 

[Coronis]

Them being 3 day matches probably required him to score much faster, thus a low conversion rate would be expected.

Thought scoring fast was one of his trademark skills.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

What was Barry’s record in the Sheffield Shield? And what were Greg Chappell’s numbers in those games that he played with Barry in SS?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Not according to Kyear.

For kyear, Barry and van der Bijl are the greatest SA cricketers iirc

 

[sayon basak]

What was Barry’s record in the Sheffield Shield? And what were Greg Chappell’s numbers in those games that he played with Barry in SS?

played 8 matches in the Sheffield Shield, scored 1101 runs @100.09; 4 100's, 3 50's.

 

[The Sean]

One of the great Shield seasons, that one - his 325 in a day against WA must have been just incredible to watch.

 

[sayon basak]

For kyear, Barry and van der Bijl are the greatest SA cricketers iirc

Graeme Smith deserves a mention.

 

[Bert]

One of the great Shield seasons, that one - his 325 in a day against WA must have been just incredible to watch.

 

[akilana]

Pollock is South Africa's greatest Batsmen.

behind Kallis

 

[akilana]

One could argue its not a quality one wants to have in a player.

At least wait til after your ton to throw it away. Like Hobbs.

depends on if you like the player.

 

[Johan]

behind Kallis

Pollock is top 3, and he ain't 2 or 3

 

[shortpitched713]

I think that is the consensus, even in CW.

Kallis, for mine.

 

[Bolo.]

For rebel tours, I wouldn't lump the stats together with tests. They are probably more comparable to playing A teams than 1st XIs. Still, as Sean said, a great look for Pollock. They also would have had some impact on the quality of actual test cricket being played as it took some quality players away, although they would have a much lower impact than WSC.

The ROW games in 1968 were 3 day exhibition games / warmups for the AUS tour. I wouldn't lump them with tests unless I was also calling a ton of non-test tour games tests as well.

The other ROW and WSC games all had opposition way above typical test standards for the time. WSC was supposed to be super competitive too. Not sure about ROW.

 

[subshakerz]

For rebel tours, I wouldn't lump the stats together with tests. They are probably more comparable to playing A teams than 1st XIs. Still, as Sean said, a great look for Pollock. They also would have had some impact on the quality of actual test cricket being played as it took some quality players away, although they would have a much lower impact than WSC.

The ROW games in 1968 were 3 day exhibition games / warmups for the AUS tour. I wouldn't lump them with tests unless I was also calling a ton of non-test tour games tests as well.

The other ROW and WSC games all had opposition way above typical test standards for the time. WSC was supposed to be super competitive too. Not sure about ROW.

The Eng and WI sides they faced in rebel tours were test standard, or no?

 

[Johan]

I won't put the Rebels side behind the WI sides Gavaskar faced in 71 and 79

 

[Bolo.]

The Eng and WI sides they faced in rebel tours were test standard, or no?

Ya, very comfortably test standard. But not as strong as the actual test teams from those countries. Particulary WI, who were basically just fielding their fringe test players. Kinda like playing an A team from a top side.

AUS were plenty weak, but better than minnows.

SL weren't test standard, but that also applies to their actual test team from the era.

 

[Bert]

The other ROW and WSC games all had opposition way above typical test standards for the time. WSC was supposed to be super competitive too. Not sure about ROW.

There were some rumblings about ROW 70, that unless you're playing for your country, you will not be motivated to give off your best. Also, that some players may have felt that there were so many star-studded ROW players that even if they failed, others would pick up. However, there were selection changes to ensure the best team was fielded (e.g. Engineer replaced by Murray), so competitive cricket was paramount.

All-rounders played a large part from both teams (Sobers, Barlow, Procter, Intikhab, even Lloyd) and (Illingworth, D'Oliveira, Greig)

The question of which team was the best at the time between W.Indies and S.Africa was never answered as the W.Indies had a slight edge in batting and the S.Africans a slight edge in bowling (as per stats)

 

[Bolo.]

There were some rumblings about ROW 70, that unless you're playing for your country, you will not be motivated to give off your best. Also, that some players may have felt that there were so many star-studded ROW players that even if they failed, others would pick up. However, there were selection changes to ensure the best team was fielded (e.g. Engineer replaced by Murray), so competitive cricket was paramount.

All-rounders played a large part from both teams (Sobers, Barlow, Procter, Intikhab, even Lloyd) and (Illingworth, D'Oliveira, Greig)

The question of which team was the best at the time between W.Indies and S.Africa was never answered as the W.Indies had a slight edge in batting and the S.Africans a slight edge in bowling (as per stats)

I dont think there was a question around that time about WI being that strong- they had a poor run from of results from the mid 60s to the mid 70s.

The interesting time to compare RSA and WI would have been the late 70s.

 

[Coronis]

I dont think there was a question around that time about WI being that strong- they had a poor run from of results from the mid 60s to the mid 70s.

The interesting time to compare RSA and WI would have been the late 70s.

iirc I heard it described by a player as the 70 series vs Australia being considered the unofficial contest for number one at that point. (specifically by the South African players)